Ah yes well Pace Picante chunky salsa is sold and advertised nation wide except perhaps in NYC. The discussion in the ad is where was your salsa made. Then in loud disbelieving horrified you got to be kidding me tones the reponse to the answer is New YORK CiiiTEEEE? It's the best salsa made north of the border....Add is kind of like the beer commercials for Henry Weinhardt Private Reserve beer out West. featuring the non existent Oregon Border Customs, Immigration and border patrol ...back when it was Oregon instead of New Amsterdam.
If the only impression of NY that a visitor has comes from NYC then the visitor missed the best of this state. Having lived here all of my 63 years the very last place I want to visit is NY City.
Sorry Michael but I am not aware of the noted commercial and can't speak to that. What I am referring to is you find the vast majority of "D" votes in the major metro parts of this state and in the rural counties you find mostly "R" voters
I spent a week in Ontario, NY, just east of Rochester, back in '67 when a friend was graduating from high school -- just a year after I did. . wonderful people, wonderful country, and I felt totally at home there. . it was a great week!!! -- j .
Hmmm curious. I've been to NYC and view it in the opposite way as a counterpoint to a Pace Picante commercial and little else. I've been upstate and found them in many ways to regular flyover country type Americans who sort of shrug apologetically when reminded of NYC. On balance I have to agree with Pace Picante for defining the situation as well as they did.
The bad guys need to know that someone is packing everywhere. Police only come after the fact and don't (can't) prevent things from happening. We have to protect ourselves
You would win that bet John! Once you go above the NYC metro area where all the idiots live, NY becomes a very conservative state except in the other major big cities. It is the 8-10 Million idiot voters in the cities that tarnish this gorgeous state!
Of course you are just repeating history again. nothing new there. Federal once the constitution was put into effect covered only State Militias by the provisions, primarily, of the President being Commander-In-Chief IF the State Militias were mobiilized and by the duty of Congress to make regulations governing the entirety of the 13 States 13 Militias into one 'like' group. The federal rights granted went no further.
The States Rights granted went only as far as the citizens of each state granted rights to the Sates or states and that did not include necessary an automatic extension to the Federal government. The rest was and is tnone of the governments business.
The Federal and the State Governments too as far As I know never the power to giver rights to the people. It's the other way around. Rights Not Specifically Granted do not exist. No matter how much fascist swine like Obama and his immediate predecessors and would be successors wish differently. That includes the military swearing allegiance to the President or the country as a whole instead of to and limited to the Constitution.
It didn't lean that way at all simply because they had no right to grant rights. The whole line of thinking is false on it's face and useful only to the left wing fascists we're not stuck with for a while.
For sure the military knows it...whether they follow their oath of office or not is another question. But if not they are personally liable for the consequences.
The whole discussion is moot while the Constitution itself is in question and not being held as the center of national politics by the leftists, Rinos to Progressives inclusive. It's just a discussion of history....until that question and it is a question at this point is underway.
So. Cut the extraneous BS and get to the real question. What law of the land is currently and legally in force? Patriot Act or Constitution? Executive Orders or Constitution? Which will law enforcement and even more important the military support? No question which one DOHS is supporting and it isn't the Constitution.
It references "a free State" or "a free state" depending upon which version you use. The one without the capital was ratified. And there is a distinction between "the state" and "the states" even without the capitalization issue.
I would argue that without the plural it refers to the entire political body rather than the 13 ratifying states.
I draw your attention to Article 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This clearly shows a reference to "the states" and clearly means the individual states.
So, I think historical reality may lean in the direction of giving the right to bear arms to the people and not to the states.
.
connection is right on! -- j
.
.
back in '67 when a friend was graduating from high school --
just a year after I did. . wonderful people, wonderful country,
and I felt totally at home there. . it was a great week!!! -- j
.
.
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#33rd
It brings money to the folks who legislate those rules into existence. Nothing more.
Like a kid whose mommy and daddy provide everything for them so they never have to think... or work... for themselves.
Does THAT make sense to you? Does to me!
I never even considered the "victims's mentality" in this.
Well, may the Force be with you.
The States Rights granted went only as far as the citizens of each state granted rights to the Sates or states and that did not include necessary an automatic extension to the Federal government. The rest was and is tnone of the governments business.
The Federal and the State Governments too as far As I know never the power to giver rights to the people. It's the other way around. Rights Not Specifically Granted do not exist. No matter how much fascist swine like Obama and his immediate predecessors and would be successors wish differently. That includes the military swearing allegiance to the President or the country as a whole instead of to and limited to the Constitution.
It didn't lean that way at all simply because they had no right to grant rights. The whole line of thinking is false on it's face and useful only to the left wing fascists we're not stuck with for a while.
For sure the military knows it...whether they follow their oath of office or not is another question. But if not they are personally liable for the consequences.
The whole discussion is moot while the Constitution itself is in question and not being held as the center of national politics by the leftists, Rinos to Progressives inclusive. It's just a discussion of history....until that question and it is a question at this point is underway.
So. Cut the extraneous BS and get to the real question. What law of the land is currently and legally in force? Patriot Act or Constitution? Executive Orders or Constitution? Which will law enforcement and even more important the military support? No question which one DOHS is supporting and it isn't the Constitution.
I would argue that without the plural it refers to the entire political body rather than the 13 ratifying states.
I draw your attention to Article 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This clearly shows a reference to "the states" and clearly means the individual states.
So, I think historical reality may lean in the direction of giving the right to bear arms to the people and not to the states.
Load more comments...